11–20 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that work when the demographic is extremely economically disadvantaged and has no way to earn starting capital?
Quoted post unavailable.
If companies were employee owned and operated you wouldn't need half the regulations and laws on the books that we do now. They would have been better served by creating more rights for all workers instead of this odd-ball stuff that ends up getting struck down and handing more power to corporate shadow characters.
Who is this "Los Angeles judge"?
EDIT: Found out who it is from another article: Terry Green.
https://trellis.law/judge/terry.a.green
> The Hon. Terry A. Green is a judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. He was appointed to the Superior Court in 1995 by former Governor Pete Wilson. He filled the vacancy created by the retirement of the Hon. Eric Younger (Ret.). Before his elevation to the Superior Court, Judge Green was a presiding judge for the Pasadena Municipal Court.
This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. But what is the right mechanism? I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. It's importa…
People also tout these studies for getting more women in business leadership. in reality that's a weird argument, women or lgbt or people of color don't need to be better in order to be accepted, they should be accepted by default. Maybe business culture with its rigid and often stupid conventions and demands has a lot to do with it. Things like, how business people socialize, what they 're expected to wear, what business gifts they send etc.
I'm extremely relieved common sense has prevailed here.
If boards are composed of people chosen based on their colour and ethnicity, that's not just odd, it's racist. Affirmative action should extend only so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.
The chance to successfully start a new company depends on the succes your parents and others in your demographic had. It's not that simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.
How does that work when the demographic is extremely economically disadvantaged and has no way to earn starting capital?
This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. But what is the right mechanism? I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. It's importa…
IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.